EIGHT-STATES FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE PROJECT … · LARGE SCALE REAL-TIME SIMULATION NORTH SCENARIO EEC...

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

EIGHT-STATES FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE PROJECTLARGE SCALE REAL-TIME SIMULATION

NORTH SCENARIO

EEC Report No. 363

Project AOM-Z-FR

Issued: May 2001

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part shouldbe reproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.

EUROCONTROL

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference:EEC Report No. 363

Security Classification:Unclassified

Originator:EEC – OPS(Operational Services)

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreCentre de Bois des BordesB.P.15F – 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone : +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00

Sponsor:EUROCONTROL

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B –1130 BRUXELLESTelephone : +32 2 729 90 11

TITLE:EIGHT-STATES FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE PROJECT

LARGE SCALE REAL TIME SIMULATION NORTH SCENARIO

AuthorP. ERIKSEN

Date05/01

PagesXii + 48

Figures34

Tables6

Appendix-

References9

EATCHIP TaskSpecification

-

ProjectAOM-Z-FR

Task No. Sponsor

-

PeriodDecember 2000

Distribution Statement:(a) Controlled by: EUROCONTROL Project Manager(b) Special Limitations: None(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO

Descriptors (keywords):

Eight-States Free Routes Airspace Project - Real-Time Simulation – Free Routes Airspace Concept–Benefits – Scandinavia – Germany – Temporary Reserved Airspace - Civil-military Co-operation – MTCD -EATMP Development – SYSCO – Stripless Human Machine Interface – System Supported Civil-militaryCo-ordination – Procedures development

Abstract:

This report describes the Eight States Free Routes Project Large Scale Simulation, North. Parts of Berlin,København, Maastricht, Malmö, and Oslo FIR/UIR was simulated. The simulation was part of the FreeRoutes Airspace Concept Validation, and was the first of two planned large-scale simulations where theFree Routes concept was validated in an environment with several ACCs involved. The simulation wasbased on the draft Free Routes Operational Concept, using a sectorisation developed by the first FreeRoutes Fast Time Simulation, and was addressing airspace design criteria, system support to controllers,entry/exit procedures. Human Performance, Human Error and Safety issues were addressed in parallelstudies conducted within the framework of the Free Routes Airspace Project, using the simulation as avehicle to provide data.

This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please report to:

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentrePublications Office

Centre de Bois des BordesB.P. 15

91222 – BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEXFrance

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report no. 363 v

EUROCONTROL

SUMMARY

This is the report of the Eight-States Free Routes Airspace Project Large-scale Real-time Simulation, North. The simulation was the first of two large-scale real-timesimulations following the small-scale simulations conducted within the project. Thesesimulations provide, together with a number of other activities, the basis for thevalidation of the Free Routes Airspace Concept.

The simulation was conducted at the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, Bretignyand lasted for three weeks. 25 air traffic controllers from Berlin ACC København ACC,Lippe Radar (mil), Maastricht UAC, Malmö ACC, and Oslo ACC, together with an airdefence specialist from the Swedish Armed Forces, participated in the simulation.Airspace covering parts of Denmark, Germany, Norway and Sweden was simulated.The emphasis in this simulation was on military operations.

Functionality and Human Machine Interface similar to the ones that are expected to bein operation in the ACCs within the simulated area before year 2005 formed the basisfor the platform. This included OLDI/SYSCO, System Supported Civil-military Co-ordination, Medium Term Conflict Detection and Short Term Conflict Alert. The HMIused a stripless, object based, colour coded concept.

Free Routes was simulated in accordance with the draft Free Routes OperationalConcept ver 0.3 [ref. 6]

The simulation showed that the Free Routes Concept can be implemented when therequired supporting functionality is in place in the ACCs, and can lead to certainbenefits. There are a number of very important implementation issues that will have tobe analysed carefully together with more detailed system requirements before apossible implementation.

The question of reduction in controller workload was not addressed in this simulation,but will be covered in the FRA simulation which will take place during January-February 2001. EEC Note 22/99 [ref. 8] and EEC Note no. 14/2000 [ref. 10] have bothalready addressed this issue for parts of the simulated area.

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report No. 363vi

EUROCONTROL

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report no. 363 vii

EUROCONTROL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... IXReferences, List of tables ................................................................................................................. XList of figures .................................................................................................................................... XI

References, List of tables ..........................................................................................................................vii1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 12. OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES ......................................................................................................... 22.1 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 22.2 Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 22.2.1 Questionnaires............................................................................................................................ 32.2.2 ISA .............................................................................................................................................. 32.2.3 Sample and data collected.......................................................................................................... 43. SIMULATION CONDUCT..................................................................................................................... 63.1 Airspace ............................................................................................................................................ 63.1.1 The simulated area ..................................................................................................................... 63.1.2 Sector Design Principles............................................................................................................. 63.1.3 Operations Room Configuration ................................................................................................. 63.1.4 Route Structure........................................................................................................................... 93.1.5 Restricted and Danger Areas and Temporary Segregated Airspace ......................................... 93.2 Traffic .............................................................................................................................................. 103.2.1 Creation..................................................................................................................................... 103.2.2 Traffic Sample Analysis ............................................................................................................ 103.3 Program of exercises ...................................................................................................................... 113.4 Simulated ATC system.................................................................................................................... 133.4.1 Controller Working Positions .................................................................................................... 133.4.2 System Functionality ................................................................................................................. 133.4.3 Human Machine Interface (HMI)............................................................................................... 153.4.4 Simulated System Scenarios .................................................................................................... 153.5 ATC Procedures.............................................................................................................................. 153.5.1 Operational Air Traffic ............................................................................................................... 153.6 Simulation Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 164. CONTROLLER TRAINING................................................................................................................. 165. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 175.1 General Findings............................................................................................................................. 175.1.1 Questionnaires.......................................................................................................................... 175.1.2 Discussion................................................................................................................................. 205.2 Objective 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 215.2.1 Questionnaires.......................................................................................................................... 215.2.2 De-briefings............................................................................................................................... 225.2.3 Discussion................................................................................................................................. 225.3 Objective 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 275.3.1 Recordings................................................................................................................................ 275.3.2 Questionnaires.......................................................................................................................... 305.3.3 De-briefings............................................................................................................................... 325.3.4 Discussion................................................................................................................................. 325.4 Objective 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 335.4.1 Questionnaires.......................................................................................................................... 335.4.2 De-briefings............................................................................................................................... 345.4.3 Discussion................................................................................................................................. 34

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report No. 363viii

EUROCONTROL

5.5 Objective 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 355.5.1 Questionnaires.......................................................................................................................... 355.5.2 De-briefings............................................................................................................................... 365.5.3 Discussion................................................................................................................................. 375.6 Objective 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 385.6.1 De-briefings............................................................................................................................... 385.6.2 Discussion................................................................................................................................. 385.7 Objective 6 ...................................................................................................................................... 395.7.1 De-briefings............................................................................................................................... 395.7.2 Discussion................................................................................................................................. 395.8 Objective 7 ...................................................................................................................................... 395.8.1 Discussion................................................................................................................................. 396. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................. 407. RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................... 42

FRENCH TRANSLATION ............................................................................................................... 43Green pages: French translation of the summary, introduction, objectives, conclusions and recommendations.Pages vertes : Traduction en langue française du résumé, de l’introduction, des objectifs, des conclusions etrecommandations

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report no. 363 ix

EUROCONTROL

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation De-CodeAPW Area Proximity WarningATFM Air Traffic Flow Management

AR Air RoutesARN ATS Routes and associated Navigation meansATC Air Traffic ControlATM Air Traffic ManagementATS Air Traffic ServicesBAF Belgian Air ForceCFL Cleared Flight LevelCOP Coordination PointCWP Controller Working PositionEEC EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreEXC Executive ControllerFDP Flight Data ProcessingFIR Flight Information RegionFR Free Routes

FRA Free Routes AirspaceFRAC Free Routes Airspace ConceptFRAP 8-States Free Routes Airspace ProjectGAT General Air TrafficHMI Human Machine InterfaceISA Instantaneous Self Assessment

MTCD Medium Term Conflict DetectionOAT Operational Air TrafficOLDI On-Line Data InterchangeODS Operator Display SystemPLC Planner Controller

R&D Areas Restricted and Danger AreasRFL Requested Flight Level

RNLAF Royal Netherlands Air ForceRVSM Reduced Vertical Separation MinimaSSR Secondary Surveillance Radar

STCA Short Term Conflict AlertTRA Temporary Reserved AirspaceUIR Upper Information RegionXFL Exit Flight Level

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report No. 363x

EUROCONTROL

REFERENCES

1. Eight-States Free Routes Airspace Project Management Plan ver. 2.02. Eight-States Free Routes Airspace Project EEC Activity Plan Plan ver. 2.03. Eight-States Free Routes Airspace Project LRT/North Facility Specification Part 14. Eight-States Free Routes Airspace Project MHI specification, LRT/North5. Eight-States Free Routes Airspace Project LRT/North Controller Handbook6. FRAP Operational Requirements Document, Part 1, Airspace Management, ver.0.37. FRAP Operational Requirements Document, Part 2, Systems, ver. 0.38. EEC Note no. 22/1999, FRAP Small-scale Real-time Simulation no. 19. EEC Note no. 6/2000, FRAP Small-scale Real-time Simulation no. 210. EEC Note no. 14/2000, FRAP Small-scale Real-time Simulation no. 311. EEC Note no. 17/2000, FRAP Small-scale Real-time Simulation no. 4

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page1. Sample description..................................................................................................... 42. Controller Working Position Configuration ............................................... 63. Simulated R & D Areas............................................................................ 94. Simulated time slots................................................................................. 105. Average hourly Throughput & Instantaneous Peaks................................ 116. Program of exercises............................................................................... 12

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report no. 363 xi

EUROCONTROL

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page1. Example question........................................................................................... 32. Example of ISA Recording ............................................................................. 43. Age distribution, participating controllers ........................................................ 54. Simulated airspace......................................................................................... 75. Operations room lay-out ................................................................................. 86. Question 1.1, The concept of Operations for FRA is difficult to

understand? ...................................................................................................17

7. Question 1.2, The FRA procedures are easy to work with?............................ 188. Question 1.3, Do you think that the way you work as a controller will

change in FRA, will you get new or changed tasks?....................................... 189. Question 1.4, Do you feel that the task distribution between PLC and EXC

will change in FRA.......................................................................................... 1910. Question 2.1, Did you experience any problem with the simulated

sectorisation? ................................................................................................. 2111. Question 2.2, Handling a mixture of FRA and non-FRA flights is confusing ... 2212. Sector Design, Military Airspace/1 .................................................................. 2313. Sector Design, Military Airspace/2 .................................................................. 2314. Sector Design, Military Airspace/3 .................................................................. 2415. Sector Design/1.............................................................................................. 2416. Sector Design/2.............................................................................................. 2517. Sector Design/3.............................................................................................. 2518. Sector Design/4.............................................................................................. 2619. No. of pilot inputs, average for all measured sectors ...................................... 2720. Frequency usage............................................................................................ 2721. Perceived workload PLCs, Without MTCD ..................................................... 2822. Perceived workload PLCs, With MTCD .......................................................... 2823. Perceived workload EXCs, Without MTCD..................................................... 2924. Perceived workload EXCs, With MTCD.......................................................... 2925. Question 3.1: It requires more attention to work traffic in FRA?...................... 3026. Question 3.2: FRA will require a redistribution of tasks within the team?........ 3027. Question 3.3: Conflict solving becomes more tactical in FRA, it is difficult

for the PLC to foresee conflicts? .................................................................... 3128. Question 3.4: Do you think a well functioning MTCD will be required in

order to introduce FRA in the ACC where you normally work? ....................... 3129. Question 3.5: It requires more attention to monitor traffic in FRA? ................. 3230. Question 4.1: Dealing with traffic at entry/exit points to/from FRA airspace,

e.g. descending towards airports, how would you rate your work devotedto this?............................................................................................................ 33

31. Question 4.2: Do you think it is more difficult to assure separation onentry/exit points in FRA compared to non-FRA?............................................. 34

32. Question 5.1: Would you prefer that flight plans were direct from FRAentry to exit, leaving conflicts with segregated airspace as a task to you?...... 35

33. Question 4.2: Activation of segregated airspace has a bigger impact oncapacity in FRA than in non-FRA.................................................................... 36

34. Question 4.3: In FRA it is not always clear why aircraft choose to fly theirparticular route ............................................................................................... 36

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report No. 363xii

EUROCONTROL

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report No. 363 1

EUROCONTROL

1. INTRODUCTION

The first Large-scale Real-time Simulation of the Eight-States Free Routes AirspaceConcept (FRAC) took place at the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre between 27th

November and 15th December 2000. The simulation was designed to meet therequirements of FRAP to validate the Free Routes Concept (FRAC).

The simulation was the first of two large scale simulations following four small-scalereal-time simulations that, together with a number of other activities, are designed tovalidate FRAC within the airspace of the eight participating states (Belgium, Denmark,Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden).

Where the small-scale simulations can be regarded as study and developmentsessions, this simulation is seen as a validation of the Free Routes AirspaceOperational Concept with more emphasis on validation than on development. Thesimulation was based on the upper airspace of parts of Berlin, København, Maastricht,Malmö FIRs/UIR. The airspace structure and sectorisation was based on the outcomeof the FRAP Fast-time Simulations, and did not follow the existing FIR/UIR boundaries.It must be noted that this sectorisation is created for validation purposes only, and isnot an implementation proposal.

25 civil and military controllers and air defence specialists took part in the simulationthat covered the area around Oslo, Gothenburg, Copenhagen, Berlin and Hamburg.Only airspace from Fl285 and up was simulated.

The simulation was based on RVSM, as RVSM is expected to be in place before theimplementation of Free Routes. Operational Air Traffic was not considered as RVSMcapable.

The simulation used the standard EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre platformcomprising OLDI Version 2, System Supported Civil-military Co-ordination and MTCDbased on a strip less Human Machine Interface.

The FRAP Human Performance Study was involved in the simulation, and performed anumber of measurements related to human performance, such as eye movementtracking and heart rate. The results of this study are published in a separate report. Inaddition, this simulation was also used to obtain information for the Free Routes Fast-time study and the Safety study.

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report No. 3632

EUROCONTROL

2. OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES2.1 OBJECTIVES

The general objective of the LRT-North real-time simulation was to validate the FreeRoutes Airspace Concept based on the draft FRA ORD during a real-time simulationwith several ACCs involved.

More specifically the objectives were to:

1. Validate and optimise the sectorisation derived from the FRAP Fast-timesimulation to support the validation of the FRAP concept.

2. Identify the impact on controller workload of the introduction of simple conflictdetection.

3. Assess the proposed procedures for entry and exit to/from Free Routes airspace,identify possible problems related to this and propose procedures to overcomethese problems.

4. Assess the effect on controller workload, situational awareness, and identifyrelated system requirements, of tactical re-routing around segregated airspace.

5. Analyse the effect of tactical interventions on downstream sectors including therequirements on

• OLDI/SYSCO• Trajectory prediction• Flight data distribution• Conflict detection

6. Validate the various procedures for handling OAT.

7. Provide support to the following work packages in FRAP, Fast time simulation,Safety Study and Human Resource Study.

2.2 MEASURES

In order to achieve the objectives, the following measures were taken:

Subjective data

• Questionnaires. The controllers were asked to fill in questionnaires before andafter the simulation.

• Instantaneous Self Assessment (ISA)• Debriefings. Controller opinions were collected during the daily debriefings

Objective data

The following data-sets were recorded:• The number of pilot inputs/controller tactical instructions (level, heading, direct)• Radio usage (number of calls per aircraft, average length of calls)• Average flying time per sector• The percentage of flights cleared to cruise at the level requested in the flight

plan

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

2.2.1 Questionnaires

The participating controllers were asked to decide how much they agreed with anumber of statements related to ATC and FRAC, as described in the example below

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Slightlydisagree

Slightlyagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Figure 1: Example question: Control towers should be build higher to givecontrollers a better view of the surrounding landscape?

In the above example, 7 controllers strongly disagreed, 12 disagreed but 1 stronglyagreed with the statement that control towers should be built higher.

Comments given by the controllers in the questionnaires are listed below the subjectquestion.

2.2.2 ISA

ISA stands for Instantaneous Self-Assessment. It is a technique originally developedby DRA Portsmouth Maritime Command and Control and used at the EEC for severalyears.

Each control position is equipped with a small box containing 5 buttons labelled:

• Very High• High• Fair• Low• Very Low

At five-minute intervals the controller is prompted by a flashing red light to the buttonwhich corresponds to his perceived workload during the previous five minutes. Thelight flashes for 30 seconds during which time the controller must respond. At eachinterval a record is written of the button selected and the delay in responding so that bythe end of the exercise there is a history of the variation of each controller’s perceivedworkload.

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report No. 3634

EUROCONTROL

The main advantage of ISA is its simplicity. The procedure is very simple to explainand administer. The results are usually used to identify busy periods within a sectorrather than as an absolute measure of workload.

The principle disadvantages are intrusiveness, especially in simulations involving newHMI, and also the ease with which the results can be ‘corrupted’ if the participants arenot suitably motivated.

P e r c e iv e d W o r k lo a d

S o u r c e : I s a A n a ly s isV e r y H ig h N o r m a L o w V e r y N o

%

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

B S / P L C B S /E X C M S /P L C B N / P L C M W /E X C B N /E X C M W /P L C

Figure 2: Example of ISA recording

2.2.3 Sample and data collected

24 controllers and one military air defence specialists were involved in this study. Onlythe 20 controllers working on measured positions used ISA and filled in questionnaires,but all 25 controllers took part in de-briefings. The main characteristics of this groupare presented in Table 1 and Figure 3.

Total Sample 20

Male 18

Female 2

Table 1: Sample description

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

25-3435,00%

35-4425,00%

45-5535,00%

more than 555,00%

Figure 3: Age distribution, participating controllers

As can be seen, there was a wide and even distribution of ages amongst the participatingcontrollers.

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report No. 3636

EUROCONTROL

3. SIMULATION CONDUCT3.1 AIRSPACE

3.1.1 The simulated area

The simulation airspace included of parts of Berlin, København, Maastricht, Malmö andOslo FIRs/UIR.

In order to create a realistic traffic picture, parts of the surrounding airspace wereincluded in the simulation as feed sectors.

3.1.2 Sector Design Principles

Nine sectors were simulated. The sector design was based on the results of the FRAPFast-time Simulation.

In the FRAP Fast-time simulation a sector plan was developed for the FRAC validationstudy. The sector boundaries in this plan are not following UIR/FIR boundaries. Allsectors were simulated from FL285 to unlimited

In two of the sectors (HAM and GES), Operational Air Traffic (OAT) was controlled bya dedicated military sector suite, in the remaining 7 sectors OAT was controlled by thecivil sector suite. The LIPPE sector was handling OAT in the HAM and GES sectors.

Sector layout, names of the sectors and frequencies used should not be seen as animplementation proposal, but as support to the validation process only.

3.1.3 Operations Room Configuration

The operations room was configured with 25 Controller Working Positions (CWPs). 20of these CWPs were used for measures.

Measured sectors were as shown in Table 2:

SectorName

SectorCode

CWPsEXC

CWPsPLC

RAMME RAM 1 1VESTA VES 1 1ALSIE ALS 1 1GEDSER GES 1 1BAKKA BAK 1 1SVEDA SVD 1 1ROENNE ROE 1 1FRIEDLAND FLD 1 1HAMBURG HAM 1 1LIPPE LIP 1 1

Table 2: Controller Working Position Configuration

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

RAM NW

NW NE

SE

SW

BAK NE

SVD NE

ROE SE

FLD SE

HAM(LIP) SW

GES(LIP) SW

ALS NW

VES NW

Measured Sector

Feed Sectors

Frequencies

Frequencies

RAMVESALSGESBAKSVDROEHAMFLDLIP

FNWFSWFSEFNE

134.35126.05128.15128.75124.40127.75128.17133.15123.60375.90

127.12135.45127.62124.15

FREE ROUTES - NORTH

Figure 4: Simulated Airspace

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report No. 3638

EUROCONTROL

13.09.00/SLI

SUPERVISION

LOCKERS

28"

28"

FEED

40

FREE ROUTES

28"

28"

28"

PLC

EXC

PLC

EXC

28"

28"

28"

28"

PLC

EXC

28"

28"

28"

Hybrid

28"

41

Hybrid

28"

42

Hybrid

28"

43

Hybrid

28"

Hybrid

28"

28"

28"

28" EXC

PLC28"

28" EXC

PLC28"

28" EXC

PLC28"

LIPLIPPE

BERLIN

HAM

RAM

FEED FEED FEEDFEED

44

LRT

OSLO

MALMO EXC

PLC

EXC

PLC

WEST EAST WESTSWEDISHSOUTH

MIL

COPENHAGEN

MAA

PLC

EXC

PLC

EXC

STR

1

11

2

12

134.35

FLD123.60

ROE128.17

SVD127.75

BAK124.40

3

13

4

14

5

15

NORTH SOUTH

124.15

NORTH

127.12

EAST

127.62 135.45

VES126.05

ALS128.15

GES128.75

375.90

133.15 16

6

17

7

18

8

19

9

20

10

Figure 5: Operations Room Layout.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

3.1.4 Route Structure

Military TACAN routes were simulated as they are today. No civil route structure wasused during the simulation.

3.1.5 Restricted and Danger Areas and Temporary Segregated Airspace

The following Restricted and Danger Areas were included in the simulation:

Reference LevelED - D100 5.500’ – 35.000’ED - D101B 24.500’ – 35.000’ED - D19A MSL – 40.000’ED - D28 MSL – 30.000’ED - D41A MSL – 45.000’ED - D41B 5.000’ – 45.000’ED - D44 MSL – 48.000’ED - D46 MSL – 45.000’ED - D47A MSL – 50.000’ED - D47B MSL – 50.000’ED - D47C 700’ – 30.000’ED - R10B MSL – 40.000’ED - R11A MSL – 48.000’ED - R11B MSL – 30.000’ED - TRA302 24.500’ – 35.000’ED - TRA306 24.500’ – 35.000’/60.000’ED - TRA308 24.500’ – 35.000’

EK - BR1 MSL – 46.000’EK - BR2 MSL – 46.000’EK - D89 MSL – 60.000’EK - R14 MSL – 45.000’

EN – DELTA 9.500’ – 60.000’EN – FOXTROT 9.500’ – 60.000’

ES - S21 MSL – 34.000’ES - S6 MSL – 46.000’ES - S91 MSL – 46.000’ES - S92 MSL – 46.000’

Table 3: Simulated R&D Areas

All areas were designed in accordance with the national AIP’s or known plans forfuture development. Areas were activated and deactivated during simulation exercisesin accordance with a schedule agreed with the participating military authorities.

FRAP LRT/NORTH

EEC Report No. 36310

EUROCONTROL

3.2 TRAFFIC

3.2.1 Creation

Civil traffic samples were created from IFPS traffic recordings of 18th June 1999. Afterthe data collection, the traffic samples were analysed and considered to berepresentative. No unusual ATFM or weather constraints were identified for thatparticular day. The levels of aircraft were then transformed into RVSM levels, using theguidelines developed by the RVSM project. Finally, the civil traffic was combined withthe military traffic samples.

Four base samples were then created corresponding to different periods along theday, to get a realistic picture of the different traffic situations that occur during the day,with traffic levels corresponding to year 2003 forecasts.

Based on the 2003 traffic samples, four samples with an additional 25 % higher trafficlevel were created to represent a possible future traffic scenario.

Finally, a set of traffic samples with reduced traffic load was created for trainingpurposes, here traffic was reduced to approximately 60% of the 2003 traffic levels.

The number of flights in each traffic sample can be seen in Table 6 below.

Each sample covered a time period of 1 hour 15 minutes, 60 minutes of which wasmeasured for analysis purposes.

Civil traffic was routed directly from the entry point to FRA airspace to the exit pointfrom FRA airspace, however, segregated airspace was circumnavigated by addingadditional points to the route in order to simulate a scenario where operators wereobliged to flight plan around segregated airspace.

Finally, military traffic was included in the traffic samples.

3.2.2 Traffic Sample Analysis

The analysis of the traffic samples below show the actual simulated load that eachsample represented for the simulated measured sectors.

Traffic sample Time slot

M1 08:10 - 09:10

M2 09:10 – 10:10

A1 13:50 – 14:50

A2 14:50 – 15:00

Table 4: Simulated time slots

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

2003 Traffic 2003+ traffic

Sector Min.flow pr.

hour

Max.flow pr.

hour

Peak Min.flow pr.

hour

Max.flow pr.

hour

Peak

ALS 36 50 21 49 58 22

BAK 30 36 18 39 56 23

FLD 32 42 18 41 50 19

GES 33 41 13 43 46 14

HAM 36 47 15 54 56 20

RAM 36 46 19 53 64 22

ROE 36 51 18 54 70 25

SVD 33 42 14 52 66 21

VES 40 46 17 52 56 22

LIP 12 16 7 12 16 7

Table 5: Average hourly throughput & instantaneous peaks

3.3 PROGRAM OF EXERCISES

In the Program of Exercises given below, exercises run in the Basic System Scenarioare labelled _b, exercises run with MTCD are labelled _m. A description of the systemscenarios is included in Para. 3.4.4.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

Day/Date Exercise 1 Exercise 2 Exercise 3Day 1,

27 Nov. TRNG TRNG TRNGDay 2,



30 Nov. A2T10 M1T10 M2T10Day 5,1 Dec. A2T10

Lost due technicalproblem

Day 6,4 Dec. A2T10


Day 7,5 dec. Lost due technical problemDay 8,4 Dec. A2T10


Day 9,7 Dec. Lost due technical problemDay 10,8 Dec. Lost due technical problemDay 1111 Dec. M2T12_b A1T14_b A2T14_bDay 1212 Dec. M2T12_m A1T14_m A2T14_mDay 1313 Dec. A1T14_m M1T12_m M2T12_mDay 1414 Dec. A1T14_b M1T12_b M1T12_bDay 1515 Dec M2T12_m Final de-briefing

Table 6: Programme of exercises

19 out of 32 planned measured exercises were executed.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

3.4 SIMULATED ATC SYSTEM

3.4.1 Controller Working Positions

The Measured Sectors were all manned with two controllers, Executive Controller (EXC)and Planner Controller (PLC), each controller had a separate Controller Working Position(CWP). The CWP consisted of:

• Sony 29’ square colour display, used to provide a multi-window workingenvironment;

• Hewlett Packard processor (240/360/3000) and Metheus display driver;• 3 Button Mouse;• AUDIOLAN simulation telecommunication system with headset, foot switch and

panel-mounted push-to-talk facility.Each CWP included a subjective workload panel (Instantaneous Self-Assessment –ISA) used by the controller for periodic input (every 5 minutes) during measuredexercises.

3.4.2 System Functionality

3.4.2.1 Surveillance

The entire simulated area was covered by radar. In general the vertical limits of radarcoverage were from ground to unlimited.

3.4.2.2 Trajectory Prediction

Most of the simulated functionality was supported by Trajectory Prediction (TP). TheTP predicts the future position of aircraft based on an aircraft model, constraints buildinto the simulator flight plan and a set of rules that interpret controller orders.

Longitudinal deviation was corrected automatically by the system.

Due to system problems, Longitudinal Deviation was not always correctly updated -this lead to errors in MTCD for about 10% of the flights.

3.4.2.3 Conformance Monitoring

Lateral deviation between the predicted and the actual position of the aircraft was notcorrected automatically by the TP. A Conformance warning was presented for thecontroller, who then could choose if or when the TP should be updated taking theactual position of the aircraft into consideration.

3.4.2.4 OLDI/SYSCO

Estimates were sent by the preceding sector 9 minutes before the flight time forpassing the sector boundary.

Time revisions were passed automatically by the system. Level revisions were passedas OLDI messages after input by the controller. Negotiations possibilities wereavailable in the form of Counterproposal and Reject of level co-ordination messages.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

3.4.2.5 Medium Term Conflict Detection

A relatively simple Medium Term Conflict Detection (MTCD) was provided to thecontrollers. In order to support distribution of task between the PLC and EXC, conflictswere divided into Planning Conflicts or Executive Conflicts

• Conflicts were classified as Planning Conflict if at least one of the flights involved inthe conflict was still not under control of the sector.

• Conflicts were classified as Executive Conflict if at least one of the flights involvedin the conflict was under control of the sector.

• Conflicts where one aircraft was controlled by the sector and the other aircraft wasnot under control by the sector was classified Planning Conflict and ExecutiveConflict.

The PLC received MTCD information about Planning Conflicts via a dedicated window,Conflict and Risk Display (CRD). In the CRD the PLC could select Planning Conflictsonly, or all conflicts.

The EXC received MTCD information directly in the data label of the subject aircraft, inorder to avoid the need for windows covering parts of the EXC radar picture. EXCcould, however, select the CRD if required.

Both controllers could call down additional information about conflicts via:

• The Dynamic Flight Leg (DFL), where DFLs of conflicting aircraft would be shownwith a colour coding of the portion of the trajectory where the aircraft werepredicted to be in conflict.

• The Vertical Aid Window, that provided a vertical presentation of the conflictingflights and other flights along the trajectory of the subject aircraft.

In the CRD the controllers could choose to see Conflicts and Risks, or Conflicts only.

A Risk is defined as a situation where aircraft are within a defined lateral distance, andwhere there is an overlap of the level bands Actual Level/Exit Level/Cleared Level ofthe two aircraft. A Conflict is a Risk where the level bands Actual Level to ClearedLevel of the two aircraft are overlapping.

MTCD look-ahead time was set to 15 minutes for Planning Conflicts and 5 Minutes forExecutive Conflicts. Only conflicts where the predicted minimum distance betweenaircraft were 8 NM or less were presented to the controllers.

3.4.2.6 System Supported Civil-Military Coordination

Civil-Military co-ordination enabled civil controllers to request transit of TRA via thedata label of the subject flight. After having received a crossing request, the militarysector could either accept, reject or counter propose a different crossing level.

3.4.2.7 Safety Nets

Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) was defined within the radar coverage area, takinginto consideration Cleared Flight Level. The look-ahead time was 2 minutes.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

3.4.3 Human Machine Interface (HMI)3.4.3.1. General

Executive Controller (EXC) and Planner Controller (PLC) each had radar windows withcolour coding of the data label to indicate the Flight Plan Life State. The data labelcontained callsign, Mode-C, Entry level (EFL), Cleared level (CFL), Exit level (XFL) andRoute elements. Additional information such as heading and speed instructions couldbe added to the data label.

Flight plan data was presented on a call-down basis for one flight at a time in adedicated window and in Sector Entry Lists for flights about to enter the sector.

A graphical presentation of the flights planned trajectory was available on a call-downbasis.

Input of instructions was performed directly via the data label.

Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) was activated if two flights were predicted to bewithin 3,7 NM and 700’ (1700’ for non-RVSM equipped aircraft and above Fl 400)within 1 minute.

3.4.4 Simulated System Scenarios

Two system scenarios were simulated, the Advanced Scenario where all the specifiedfunctionality was available to the controllers, and the Basic Scenario where MTCDwas disabled.

3.5 ATC PROCEDURES

Revised Letters of Agreement between the involved ACCs were developed, in order toallow the use of Free Routes.

In general all traffic from airports below or close to the simulated airspace climbed toFL280. Traffic with destination at airports below or close to the simulated airspace wasdescended to FL290 by the measured sector and transferred to the Feed Sectorbelow, released for further descend.

Levels were in accordance with the RVSM semi-circular rule.

Procedures for Operational Air Traffic were simulated as described below.

3.5.1 Operational Air Traffic

3.5.1.1 General

Apart from the sectors where Lippe Radar controlled OAT, the GAT sectors controlledOAT.

3.5.1.2 Lippe Radar

Lippe Radar is situated within Maastricht UAC, and uses the MADAP System togetherwith Maastricht. All data is shared.

• Lippe Radar can operate OAT under radar control without informing Maastrichtabout the traffic. In this case Lippe Radar is responsible for maintaining separationto GAT.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

• Lippe Radar can ask Maastricht to maintain separation to OAT, a single flight or acorridor.

• Lippe Radar can co-ordinate traffic with Maastricht, agreeing how separation will bemaintained between flights, in which case the responsibility for maintainingseparation is as agreed in the co-ordination

In this simulation Lippe Radar controlled OAT within the HAM and GES Sectors.Procedures similar to those for with Maastricht were established with the GES Sector.

3.5.1.3 Temporary Reserved Airspace

Depending on the activity within the TRA, civil flights were accepted through the TRA.This transit was done on a case-by-case basis using the System Supported CivilMilitary Co-ordination functionality or telephone.

Lippe Radar was the co-ordinating partner for areas in German airspace. A SwedishAir Force representative was the co-ordinating partner for TRAs with Danish,Norwegian and Swedish airspace.

The TRAs were simulated as they exist today.

3.6 SIMULATION LIMITATIONS

Due to network problems, only 19 of 30 planned simulations were executed. Thesimulation results are therefore based on less material than foreseen.

The TP problems described in Paragraph 3.4.2.2 lead to unreliable MTCD informationfor about 10% of the simulated flights.

High system load occasionally resulted in some delays in system response wheninputting data.

4. CONTROLLER TRAINING

Sixteen of the participating controllers received five days training combined with thesimulation test week. The program of the training week included theoretical lessons onHMI and system related matters as well as issues related to the Free Routes conceptand the use of RVSM. After each theoretical lesson, the controllers trained on thesimulation platform. The last two days of the week were used entirely to run simulatedtraffic at increasing traffic levels.

The remaining 9 controllers received an identical training program during the first 3days of the simulation period. Only 3 of the 9 controllers had never worked on a similarsimulated system.

The simulation of the feed sectors was considered by the controllers to be adequate .

Some of the controllers slightly disagree with the statement that the traffic wassimulated in a realistic way. This was mainly due to problems simulating military traffic,especially the lack of capability to simulate changeover from OAT status to GATstatus, a procedure that is used in the simulated area for particular routes.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

5. RESULTS

As described in Paragraph 2.2, results are derived from three different sources

• System recordings, data recorded by the simulator system, e.g. radio usage• Questionnaires, controllers working on measured sectors were asked to fill in a

questionnaire at the end of the simulation• De-briefings, verbal information derived during discussions with the participating

controllersFor each objective, results are listed under these three headings, followed by adiscussion to sum up the findings for the particular objective.

5.1 GENERAL FINDINGS


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Stronglydisagree


Slightlyagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Figure 6: Question 1.1: The Concept of Operations for FRA is difficult tounderstand?

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Stronglydisagree

Slightlydisagree

Agree

Figure 7: Question 1.2: The FRA procedures are easy to work with?

02468

101214

Yes No

Figure 8: Question 1.3: Do you think that the way you work as a controller willchange in FRA, will you get new or changed tasks?

Additional comments to Question 1.3:

♦ There are no safe parallel routes , a level change requires a close look at thetraffic situation where opposite traffic may be conflicting As planner it's moredifficult to help when the traffic load is high

♦ Work for planner will change more to a second, you might even say primary,radar controller. You will need a planner controller more often than the situationtoday

♦ The work will be more tactical♦ Monitoring and establishing flows for climb♦ Descent on a tactical tasks, coordinating with mil♦ From the OAT point of view FRA will increase the workload

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

♦ I will need a planner♦ This is related with the new tools and the lack of strips and not so much with

FRAP, the planner task will change.♦ The strip system as we know it will have to be abolished, better tools for the

planner are necessary♦ EXC will be more tactical, you need a clear distribution of tasks between EXC

and PLC

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Yes No

Figure 9: Question 1.4: Do you feel that the task distribution between PLC andEXC will change in FRA?

Additional comments to question 1.4:

♦ Not in Maastricht, in general for most other centres I think there will be majorchanges.

♦ planner work will be more tactical as the workload increases♦ not much, but the planner will probably working more tactically than today♦ planner doing more monitoring of the radar screen♦ the planner is acting as a second exe♦ PLC will have to assist the EXE more and more while his former role has to be

done by automatic systems which have to work very reliably♦ the planner will need a radar picture♦ the planner will be working on the radar scope instead of stripboard

What is your overall impression of FRAC:

♦ For the time I don't see an implementation due to loads of factors (political,different systems, etc.)

♦ It can work in real life but there is still a long way to go♦ I'm totally in favor free route as from experience at MAAS UAC it will enable you

to handle more traffic and it saves aircraft fuel and time♦ In free route it's more difficult to foresee conflicts. An MTCD that is reliable and

easy to understand is essential♦ during military exercise time, I feel that gains from the concept to the airliners will

generate a increase of workload and have effect on the safety, but duringevenings and weekends it will be a good concept.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

♦ I like it, I think it's feasible, I think everybody is able to work with this concept♦ A lot of problems have to be fixed to be able to work in a safe way♦ It will work, although it's a bit odd that when we get a lot of traffic in a TMA the

normal solution is to have the traffic in fixed patterns♦ I cannot imagine that it is implemented without a better preplanning of TSA etc.♦ It will help to cope with the requirement in ATC over the next years provided that

at least 5 states will be involved.♦ A workable concept that should be implemented♦ A good idea although it will increase workload on controllers unless serious

attention is paid to airspace design♦ no big chance from today

5.1.2 Discussion

The general impression amongst the controllers participating in the simulation is thatFRA could be implemented in the simulated airspace without major difficulties,provided that a number of added system requirements are put in place, procedures areadjusted to FRA, and the airspace is redesigned in accordance with Free Routes trafficflows. As can be seen from Question 1.1 and 1.2, controllers do not find it difficult tounderstand and work with the FRA concept.

It is clear from the simulation that FRA will change the controller’s tasks. It is moredifficult for the PLC to foresee and solve conflicts in the medium term, even withsupport from the system. This adds to the EXC workload.

The PLC often sees himself as a second EXC, it is difficult to work ahead, a keep infront of real-time, as it is normally required for a PLC. It is not clear whether this is aresult of FRA only, or a combination of FRA, RVSM and the higher traffic load.

Conflicts are detected later than when operating in fixed routes, leaving less time tosolve conflicts in an orderly way. It all became more tactical and strategic planningdecisions were rare. This calls for a correctly functioning MTCD.

Similar results have been seen in other simulations using stripless HMI, but strip basedsystems are considered unsuitable for FRA (See EEC Note 21/99, 1st Small Scale FreeRoute Real-time Simulation) and for predicted future traffic levels.

Capacity and controller workload was not the objective for this simulation, however theperception amongst the participating was that workload would remain unchanged withno or low military activity, and increase with high military activity, compared to today’ssituation with widespread use of direct tracks.

Co-ordination with military requires more effort in FRA than in Fixed Routes. This is aninevitable result of the concept.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

5.2 OBJECTIVE 1

Validate and optimise the sectorisation derived from the FRAP Fast-time simulation tosupport the validation of the FRAP concept


0

5

10

15

20

Yes No

Figure 10: Question 2.1: Did you experience any problem with the simulatedsectorisation?

Additional comments made in relation to this question:

♦ Sector layout not coincident with traffic, too many boundary cases like crossingsat the edge of the sector

♦ The HAM sector was too small compared to the reality♦ Traffic just affecting a corner of sector and along borders♦ Exit points was on the border of 2 sectors♦ Flights flying very close to the border of the sector and crossing the sector for

just a few miles♦ Many aircraft are only scratching the sectors, we had too much corner cutting♦ Sectors were not optimised for traffic with vertical movements♦ BAK sector is too big♦ VES sector to big

What sort of modification would you like to see?

♦ Create sectors which have their conflicts area more in the center when possible♦ Cut the NE corner of BAK sector♦ The main traffic flow has to be subject for intensive and more careful studies♦ smaller sector♦ FLD sector within the limits of Berlin sector today, less coordination; traffic flow

not along boundaries, no short term transfer and no unnecessary frequencychanges

♦ The problem with corner cutting will always be there but a good skip function anda presentation to the next sector would be a must

♦ VES sector needs to be separated in 2 sectors

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Stronglydisagree


Slightlyagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Figure 11: Question 2.2: Handling a mixture of FRA and non-FRA flights isconfusing

5.2.2 De-briefings

The sector layout should to the extent possible reduce flights re-entering sectors inorder to reduce workload.

Segregated airspace should be placed well within sector boundaries, so that they canbe circumnavigated without entering neighbouring sectors, or shall be placed at sectorboundaries, so that most circumnavigation will take place within a single sector

Sector layout should follow traffic stream not FIR boundaries.

Sectors should respect the practical limitations for presentations, e.g. not be to long.

5.2.3 Discussion

The sector layout should to the extent possible reduce flights re-entering sectors. Re-entering flights add to the EXC workload in terms of frequency changes and mentalsituational updates, it adds to the PLC workload in terms of added co-ordination.

In addition to workload issues, functionality used also has difficulties supporting flightswith multiple entries and exits from a sector or ACC. This becomes clear when anaircraft has two different entries at different times and different levels co-ordinated withdifferent co-ordination partners. This is a logical problem, that can be solved, but it isnot clear how the information would be presented and accessed with the modern HMI.This caused problems during the simulation and the simulator was not able to cope. Itis likely that real ATC systems will have the same or even more severe problemshandling these situations.

Segregated airspace adds workload, either to co-ordinate through or tocircumnavigate. It becomes really demanding if circumnavigation brings the aircraftinto another sector, or worse still, another FIR, where flight plan data is not available.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

Some areas extend from lower airspace to above Fl 285. It is expected that the militarypartner would insist on having the same design of the area in the entire level band.This means that areas that are kept clear of ATS-routes in lower airspace will often besituated in conflict with the FRA traffic flow.

Figures 12 and 13 show two possible layouts that would reduce this problem. Figure14 shows the worst case, where workload is added not only to the subject sector, butalso to neighbouring sectors.

Sector A

Sector B

TRA

Figure 12: Sector Design, Military airspace/1

Traffic can be vectored around the TRA in Sector B without entering sector A.

Sector A

Sector B

TRA


Traffic can be vectored around the TRA in Sector A and B without crossing the sectorboundary.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

Sector A

Sector B

TRA


In order to fly the shortest way around the TRA, traffic in Sector A will have to enterSector B, adding workload to the two sectors.

In today’s airspace sectors and procedures are, amongst other things, designed inaccordance with the route structure in order to:

• Distribute workload between sectors• Reduce the number of sector crossing• Avoid conflicts between aircraft at, or close to, sector boundariesIn FRA we have no means to control this. Operators are allowed to file preferredroutes. As a consequence of this sectors will have to be designed in accordance withtraffic flows in order to avoid added workload and to distribute workload evenly.

Not all sector shapes are optimal in FRA. Especially the problem with re-enteringflights will have to be addressed carefully. Figures 15-18 show a number of possibledesigns, together with the problems related to each design. Main traffic flow isNortheast-Southwest in all examples.

Sector B

Sector A

Figure 15: Sector design/1

The design of Sector B, as shown in Fig. 12 leads to re-entering of flights in Sector A,sometimes with only a seconds of flying time in Sector B. Small lateral deviations to

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

the tracks will determine whether sector B is in the sector sequence or not. A layoutlike this was part of the simulated airspace, based on the Free Routes Fast-timeSimulation, but had to be changed during the simulation Acceptance Test in order toreduce controller workload, and avoid system errors. This layout should be avoided.

Sector B

Sector D

Sector A

Sector C


Fig. 16 shows an example where 4 sectors can be involved in one co-ordination. Thislay-out should be avoided.

Sector B

Sector A


FIR boundaries often follow the State boundaries. This leads to sector shapes asshown in Fig. 17. In a Fixed Routes environment this has little or no effect, but in FRAthis will lead to situations that cannot be supported by the ATC system. It is importantthat sectors are designed based on traffic flows and not on FIR

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

Sector BSector A

Sector C


Based on the experiences from the simulation, the three sectors shown in Fig. 18 havean optimum layout with regard to problem of re-entering flights. In addition to thesebasic considerations, it will be necessary to consider local constraints, military airspaceetc.

The sectorisation used during the simulation was based on a Fast-time simulation,where only a brief discussion of sector design took place, and without any real-timesimulation experience. This is clearly reflected in the questionnaire comments. It isrecommended that a fast-time simulation be conducted focussed on implementationearly in a possible FRAP Implementation Phase.

Another issues to be considered when designing sectors is that modern radar displaysare square. Designing around traffic streams may suggest long narrow sectors. If theybecame too long, however, space would be wasted on the screen, and the requiredrange setting to display the entire sector plus a buffer would become a problem for thecontroller.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

5.3 OBJECTIVE 2

Identify the impact on controller workload of the introduction of simple conflict detection

5.3.1 Recordings

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Direct Heading Level Speed

BasicMTCD

Figure 19: No. of pilot inputs, average for all measured sectors.

012345678

Time spent (min.) No of calls

BasicMTCD

Figure 20: Frequency usage

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

Perceived Workload

Source : Isa Very High Norma Low Very No

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ALS/PL BAK/PL FLD/PL GES/PL HAM/PL RAM/PL ROE/PL SVD/PL VES/PL

Figure 21: Perceived workload PLCs, Without MTCD

Perceived Workload


%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ALS/PL BAK/PL FLD/PL GES/PL HAM/PL RAM/PL ROE/PL SVD/PL VES/PL

Figure 22: Perceived workload PLCs, With MTCD

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

Perceived Workload


%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ALS/EX BAK/EX FLD/EX GES/EX HAM/EX RAM/EX ROE/EX SVD/EX VES/EX

Figure 23, Perceived workload EXC, without MTCD

Perceived Workload


%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ALS/EX BAK/EX FLD/EX GES/EX HAM/EX RAM/EX ROE/EX SVD/EX VES/EX

Figure 24: Perceived workload EXCs, with MTCD

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL


0123456789

10

Stronglydisagree


Slightlyagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Figure 25: Question 3.1: It requires more attention to work traffic in FRA?

0123456789

10

Stronglydisagree


Slightlyagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Figure 26: Question 3.2: FRA will require a re-distribution of tasks within thecontroller team?

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

012345678

Stronglydisagree


Slightlyagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Figure 27: Question 3.3: Conflict solving becomes more tactical in FRA, it isdifficult for the PLC to foresee conflicts?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Yes No

OsloCopenh.MalmoBerlinMaastr.

Figure 28: Question 3.4: Do you think a well functioning MTCD will be required inorder to introduce FRA in the ACC where you normally work?

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

0123456789

10

Stronglydisagree


Slightlyagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Figure 29: Question 3.5: It requires more attention to monitor traffic in FRA?

5.3.3 De-briefings

MTCD information required a buffer around the sector as well, as many conflictsoccurred close to the sector boundary.

No MTCD information is better than wrong or missing information. The quality of theinformation presented during the simulation was not good - there were too many wrongor missing conflicts.

5.3.4 Discussion

The simulation was set up to answer the question whether MTCD is an enabler forFRA or not. It has to be said that the quality of the MTCD was less than 100%. It isestimated that about 90% of the conflicts were presented for the controllers in a correctway. The participating controllers considered that inadequate. This is worth bearing inmind when looking towards implementation of MTCD in real systems. In fact severalcontrollers considered the MTCD a nuisance rather than help.

The logic behind the MTCD was rather simple, and did not take the rate of climb ofaircraft into consideration like the MTCD developed by EATMP, however as thesimulation was upper airspace only, this had a limited effect.

Question 3.1 indicates a clear controller perception that there is a need for systemsupport to the controller to perform the monitoring tasks. This can be in the form ofMTCD, Area Proximity Warning (APW) or Conformance Monitoring. In earliersimulations it was concluded that the need for system support to the monitoring taskwould arise at a lower traffic level in FRA than elsewhere.

The shift of workload towards the tactical side is a problem for FRAC, the tactical sideis already the bottleneck in today’s environment. This picture may change with the firstimplementation of Air ground data link, but that is not foreseen before the plannedimplementation of FRA.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

Question 3.4 gives a clear picture of where MTCD is needed. In Oslo the traffic densityis still fairly low, the monitoring task can be performed without system support. In theother simulated ACC’s MTCD should be considered as an enabler for FRA.

The number of pilot orders can be used to express the EXC workload related toconflict resolution. As seen in Figure 19, no reduction in workload can be identified.The same applies for the PLC looking at the number and duration of radiotransmissions (Figure 20). This is supported by Figures 21-24, ISA recordings, whereno significant difference can be seen between the two scenarios Basic and MTCD. Theconclusion is that no reduction of workload has been identified.

The tables showing perceived workload show now difference between the conditionswith MTCD and without MTCD.

It must be remembered that this is based on an MTCD not working 100% correctly.The general feeling amongst most of the controllers was that MTCD would be requiredin order to identify all conflicts in due time. It is also clear that the EXC is becoming thebottleneck as the work is becoming more and more tactical. I way to offload the EXCby enabling the PLC to provide an efficient support is essential.

Further work aiming at developing the MTCD for FRA focusing on moving workloadfrom the EXC to the PLC should be undertaken.

5.4 OBJECTIVE 3

Assess the proposed procedures for entry and exit to/from Free Routes airspace,identify possible problems related to this and propose procedures to overcome theseproblems.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Low Moderate High Very high

Figure 30: Question 4.1: Dealing with traffic at entry/exit points to/from FRAairspace, e.g. descending towards airports, how would you rate your work

devoted to this?

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

Figure 31: Question 4.2: Do you think it is more difficult to assureseparation on entry/exit points in FRA compared to non-FRA?

The following comments were added to these questions:

♦ BAK sector, traffic inbound ESSA and departing ESSB southbound in conflict.Traffic in and out of Oslo via PENOR gave conflicts

♦ Inbound and outbound tracks should be separated using parallel routes orprocedures for level separation should be established

♦ Place entry and exit points further from the airport

5.4.2 De-briefings

Entry and exit points are to close to the airports. This creates many conflicts betweenarriving and departing aircraft in the climb/descend phase.

Entry and exit points should be well separated, so that climb and descend sectors canbe created.

Traffic from lower airspace shall only climb to the bottom of FRA without prior co-ordination

Sequencing is easier when aircraft are flying on the same track. Traffic should be inthe route structure before the sequencing process starts.

5.4.3 Discussion

The Outcome of FRAP Rapid Prototyping suggested that Entry/Exit points should be80NM to 100Nm from the subject airport. In this simulation the points were in general60NM from the airports.

It was suggested during de-briefings that the optimum design would have Entry/Exitpoints very close the normal Top of Descend/Top of Climb points, in order to maintaintraffic in the route structure during the climb and descend phases.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Not at all Partially Totally

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

It is important that entry and exit points are well separated to avoid inbound andoutbound traffic flying in the same direction during climb and descend. Thiscorresponds to the findings from Rapid Prototyping.

At the same time this will bring traffic onto the same track during the sequencing,another issue raised during debriefings.

In line with the outcome of previous simulation, procedures used today around severalairports i.e. that the lower sector climbs departing traffic to RFL was changed. Flightswere climbed to Fl. 280 only. It was agreed that this was necessary, as climbing trafficis more frequently in conflict with overflying traffic in FRA.

Apart from this, the transition phase to/from lower airspace is not considered moredifficult in FRA than in today’s environment.

5.5 OBJECTIVE 4

Assess the effect on controller workload, situational awareness, and identify relatedsystem requirements, of tactical re-routing around segregated airspace.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Yes No

Figure 32: Question 5.1: Would you prefer that the flight plans were direct fromFRA entry to exit, leaving conflicts with segregated airspace as a task to you?

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Stronglydisagree


Slightlyagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Figure 33: Question 4.2: Activation of segregated airspace has a bigger impacton capacity in FRA than in non-FRA?

0123456789

10

Stronglydisagree


Slightlyagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Figure 34: Question 4.3: In FRA it is not always clear why aircraft choose to flytheir particular route?

5.5.2 De-briefings• It is often difficult to find out why a particular point is on the flightplan.• Points should be established around segregated airspace to ease the tactical task

of re-routing aircraft. This would make it easier to explain the new route to the pilot,and enable the controller to issue a new route instead of having to keep the aircrafton headings.

• It is doubtful if sufficiently high quality of environmental date can be provided tooperators enabling them to submit correct flightplans with regard to avoidance ofactive segregated airspace.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

5.5.3 Discussion

It seems to be a requirement that operators plan flights around segregated airspace.The workload related to the re-routing around segregated airspace is considerable.This is in line with the requirement from operators to be able to estimate distance andtime as accurately as possible to avoiding surprises en-route. There will still remaincases where a tactical re-routing is required. Two things can be done to reduce theworkload related to this task:

• Reduce the number of tactical re-routings• Reduce the work related to tactical re-routingsIn order to reduce the number of tactical re-routings, information provided to aircraftoperators must be as accurate as possible. This is clearly an area where things are notblack and white, but a number of actions can be taken to improve the quality ofenvironmental data, even if a 100% solution probably not will be achieved.

The following initiatives could be taken to improve the data quality:

• A Europe-wide, or at least covering the participating eight States, initiative to createa database covering planned and active airspace utilisation should be launched.This probably falls within initiatives already taken, the progress of these initiativesshould then be followed, to ensure that the result will be available and implementedbefore the implementation of FRA.

• Military partners should respect planned activation of airspace, or as early aspossible cancel airspace reservations, e.g. when it becomes clear that weather willnot permit the planned mission.

• Routes should be updated as late as possible before take-off to allow the latestinformation to be taken into consideration.

• Initiatives should be taken to ensure that uplink of airspace status is considered asa possible candidate for early air ground data link application.

With regard to the workload related to tactical re-routing, it is clear that keeping aircrafton heading is more demanding than issuing a route change to the pilot, using pointsthat are known to the ATC and airborne systems in advance. In order to do that, pointsshould be established around segregated airspace.

These points should be the same as were used for flight planning.

To avoid confusion, a naming convention should be considered to enable the controllerto understand why the points are in the flight plan thus easing the job of identifyingaircraft that could be offered a more direct route when a segregated area is de-activated.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

5.6 OBJECTIVE 5Analyse the effect of tactical interventions on downstream sectors including therequirements on

• OLDI/SYSCO• Trajectory prediction• Flight data distribution• Conflict detection

5.6.1 De-briefings• It must be possible to identify to which sector in the next ACC the OLDI information

has been sent.• OLDI should be able to handle changes to the sector sequence, as they will occur

often following tactical interventions.• A function enabling the controller to inform the previous sector that the aircraft shall

be transferred directly to the following sector, “skip a sector”, should be available,at least internally within an ACC.

• A minimum set of information about flights flying just outside a sector should beavailable to the sector.

5.6.2 Discussion

In the Fixed Route environment OLDI messages are always related to a Co-ordinationPoint (COP). The COP is not only a graphical point where the aircraft is leaving thearea of responsibility of the ACC, it also identifies a set of procedures such as nextsector, separation minima, agreed levels etc., possibly related to the further route ofthe aircraft, aerodrome of departure or destination.

In FRA, the notion of a COP does not exist in the way as in the fixed routeenvironment. Aircraft are randomly leaving sectors without relation to a COP. Thiscreates problems, not only because the OLDI Standard is based on the utilisation ofCOPs, but also because the liaison to a set of procedures has disappeared.

There may in FRA be a requirement to link to a COP, without requiring the aircraft topass over the point, but maybe within a gate, enabling the controllers to identify nextsector and possible procedural requirements.

Following tactical interventions, the system shall recalculate the trajectory of theaircraft, and if necessary change the sector sequence for the subject aircraft.

‘Assume’ and ‘transfer of control’ are the two tasks that require most of the EXCsattention, more than 50% of radio transmissions are related to these tasks. A SKIPfunction that would allow the EXC to propose to the preceding sector to change theflight directly to the frequency of the following sector would be very beneficial in orderto reduce EXC workload and frequency load.

Simulation experience shows that such functionality is complicated to introduce. It isnot only a matter of providing information on the next frequency to the upstreamsector. All the conditions related to the transfer of control have to be transferred. Itbecomes even more complicated if the SKIP is succeeded by a request from thedownstream sector to change the transfer conditions, e.g. change of exit level orrequest for release, or if the sector sequence changes. In these cases the sector whichmade the SKIP will have to be brought back in the loop.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

It happens that flights leave the sector very close to a sector not in the sectorsequence of the given flight. It these cases it is important that information is providedto this sector, and that the controller is aware that information has been passed, toavoid that unnecessary co-ordination is taking place.

In FRA there is a general requirement to have information flying close to the boundaryof the sector without entering the sector. A minimum set of information, e.g. callsign,aerodrome of departure and destination, and possibly next route point, should beavailable for all flights inside a buffer around the sector, even if the flights arecontrolled by another ACC.

5.7 OBJECTIVE 6Validate the various procedures for handling OAT.

5.7.1 De-briefings• Adjustment of TRAs, considering FRA traffic flows as well as the lower level route

structure is required.• The co-ordination workload is increased• OAT transit flights require more attention• Some OAT operations conducted outside TRAs today may need a TRA in FRA

5.7.2 Discussion

It is still clear that the main problem for OAT during the simulation was RVSM.

For the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish airspace, where a Swedish Air Defencespecialist managed the segregated airspace the general impression was, in line withthe findings during SRT-2 (EEC Note No. 6/2000) that FRA not would create majordifficulties for OAT. The workload will be increased, but adjustments of TRAs couldreduce the number of flights requesting to penetrate the TRAs compared to thesimulated environment. Depending on the type of operation conducted in the TRA,penetration by civil flights would be accepted, accepted through certain corridors, ornot accepted.

In the three countries OAT transit flights are controlled by civil ATC. No changes wereidentified here.

For the Lippe Radar Controllers, who controlled OAT transit flights the main differencefrom today was that more attention was required to maintain the civil traffic picture. Itwas the impression that a closer co-operation than today with the civil controller wouldbe beneficial.

5.8 OBJECTIVE 7

Provide support to the following work packages in FRAP: Fast time simulation, SafetyStudy and Human Resource Study.

5.8.1 Discussion

The results of these activities are available in separate reports issued within FRAP.The Reports are available through the EUROCONTROL Project Manager

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

6. CONCLUSIONS

Validate the Free Routes Airspace Concept (FRAC) based on the draft Free RoutesAirspace Operational Requirements Document during a real-time simulation withseveral ACCs involved. General Findings:

• The Free Routes Airspace Concept is easy to understand and is accepted by theparticipating controllers. From a controller point of view the concept could beimplemented when the required system support is in place.

• FRA shifts workload towards the executive controller.Validate and optimise the sectorisation derived from the FRAP fast-time simulation tosupport validation of the FRAP concept.

• Redesign of today’s sectors is required before implementation.• New sector design principles considering traffic flows, minimising re-entrance and

considering TRA’s must be used.• Adjustment of TRA’s considering FRA traffic flows, military requirements and

constraint from lower airspace is required to optimise airspace utilisation.• More detailed studies using model-based simulations are required.Identify the impact on controller workload of the introduction of simple conflictdetection.

• The quality of the Medium Term Conflict Detection (MTCD) used during thesimulation was inadequate.

• It seems that MTCD would be required in Maastricht, Berlin, Copenhagen andMalmö before implementation of FRA.

• No reduction in workload was recorded with MTCD.• There is a need to further develop MTCD functionality and HMI to shift work back to

the planning controller and reduce executive controller workload.Assess the proposed procedures for entry and exit to/from Free Routes airspace,identify possible problems related to this and propose procedures to overcome theseproblems.

• Entry/Exit points to/from lower airspace should be 80-100NM from the airport.• Entry/Exit points to/from lower airspace and should be well separated to avoid

conflicts between climbing and descending aircraft.• Flights should not climb from lower airspace directly to RFL without co-ordination

with the FRA sector.• Some controllers felt that the were a need to have traffic in a fixed routes structure

before the sequencing starts in order to ease sequencing taskAssess the effect on controller workload, situational awareness, and identify relatedsystem requirements, of tactical re-routing around segregated airspace.

• Flight planning should be made around segregated airspace to reduce workload.• Routes should be updated shortly before take-off to take latest information into

consideration.• A database with actual and planned status for segregated airspace should be

established.• A naming convention should allow for controllers to identify why particular points

are in the flight plan.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

Analyse the effect of tactical interventions on downstream sectors including therequirements on

OLDI/SYSCOTrajectory predictionFlight data distributionConflict detection

• OLDI should be able to handle changes to the sector sequence, as they will occuroften following tactical interventions.

• OLDI must provide information about to which sector in the next ACC the OLDIinformation has been sent.

• Considerations should be made as to whether COPs should be extended to gates.• Following tactical interventions, sector sequences must be re-calculated.• A buffer zone around sectors must be established to allow the controller to call

down information on these flights.Validate the various procedures for handling OAT.

• FRA is not a hindrance to OAT.• Workload on the OAT controller will increase.• Some OAT operations taking place outside TRAs today may have to take place in

a TRA in FRA.Provide support to the following work packages in FRAP: Fast time simulation, SafetyStudy and Human Resource Study.

• This subject is covered in individual reports from the above studies.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following additional studies should be carried out during the Validation Phase ofthe Eight-States Free Routes Project

1. Work should be undertaken to further develop tools that will enable the PLC tooffload the EXC, reducing the risk of the EXC being overloaded.

2. Conduct Model based simulation to further optimise sectorisation, segregatedairspace and entry/exit points, using the experiences gained during the FRAPvalidation process.

3. Perform additional studies and decide on procedures for flight planning aroundsegregated airspace, and provide guidelines for tactical circumnavigation ofairspace

4. The problem of COPs as points or gates should be studied to find solutions for theproblems related to OLDI.

FRAP LRT/NORTH

Rapport CEE No. 363 43

EUROCONTROL

TRADUCTION EN LANGUE FRANÇAISE

RÉSUMÉ

On trouvera ci-dessous le rapport de la simulation en temps réel à grande échelle dela partie nord du Projet d'espace aérien à itinéraire libre dans huit États. Il s'agit de lapremière de deux simulations faisant suite aux simulations de moindre envergure déjàréalisées au titre de ce projet. Associées à une série d'autres activités, ces simulationsdoivent servir de fondement à la validation du Concept d'espace aérien à itinérairelibre.

La simulation s'est déroulée au Centre expérimental d'EUROCONTROL, à Brétigny,sur une période de trois semaines. Vingt-cinq contrôleurs de la circulation aériennedes CCR de Berlin, Copenhague, Malmö et Oslo, du centre radar militaire de Lippe etde l'UAC Maastricht, ainsi qu'un spécialiste de la défense aérienne des Forces arméessuédoises, ont pris part à l'exercice, qui a porté sur l'espace aérien au-dessus decertaines parties du Danemark, de l'Allemagne, de la Norvège et de la Suède.

La plate-forme utilisée faisait intervenir des fonctions et une interface homme-machineidentiques à celles qui seront mises en œuvre, avant 2005, dans les CCR de la zonesimulée. Au nombre de ces fonctions figuraient l'échange de données en ligne et lacoordination automatisée (OLDI/SYSCO), la coordination civile-militaire automatisée,la détection des conflits à moyen terme et l'avertissement de conflit à court terme.L'interface homme-machine (HMI) se présentait sous la forme d'un dispositif sansbande, à base objet et avec codage chromatique.

La simulation des itinéraires libres reposait sur l'application du projet de Conceptopérationnel d'espace aérien à itinéraire libre.

La simulation a fait apparaître que le concept en question peut être mis en œuvre,pour autant que les CCR disposent des fonctions requises, et qu'il est porteur decertains avantages. Son adoption éventuelle nécessite toutefois que l'on étudie plusavant un certain nombre d'aspects capitaux de sa mise en œuvre et que l'on affine ladéfinition des besoins du système.

La question de l'allégement de la charge de travail des contrôleurs n'a pas été abordéeà cette occasion-ci mais le sera dans le contexte de la simulation FRA, prévue enjanvier-février 2001. On notera cependant que les notes CEE 22/99 et 14/00 traitent,toutes deux, de cette question pour certaines parties de la zone simulée.

FRAP LRT/NORTH

Rapport CEE No. 36344

EUROCONTROL

1. INTRODUCTION

La première simulation en temps réel à grande échelle du Projet d'espace aérien àitinéraire libre dans huit États (FRAP) s'est déroulée du 27 novembre au 15 décembre2000 au Centre expérimental d'EUROCONTROL. Son objectif était de répondre auxspécifications du FRAP à l'appui de la validation du Concept d'espace aérien àitinéraire libre (FRAC).

Il s'agissait en l'occurrence de la première de deux simulations à grande échellefaisant suite à quatre simulations en temps réel de moindre envergure, l'objectif étantde permettre, en combinaison avec un certain nombre d'autres activités, la validationdu FRAC dans l'espace aérien des huit États participants (Allemagne, Belgique,Danemark, Finlande, Luxembourg, Norvège, Pays-Bas et Suède).

Alors que les simulations à petite échelle peuvent être assimilées à des travauxd'étude et de mise au point, la simulation à grande échelle dont il est question ici a misdavantage l'accent sur la validation que sur l'affinement du Concept opérationneld'espace aérien à itinéraire libre. Le cadre de la simulation était l'espace aériensupérieur de certaines parties des FIR/UIR de Berlin, Copenhague, Maastricht etMalmö. La structure et la sectorisation de l'espace aérien se fondaient sur les résultatsdes simulations en temps accéléré du FRAP et ne respectaient donc pas les limites deFIR/UIR actuelles. Il convient de noter que la sectorisation utilisée a été conçue pourles besoins de la validation et ne constitue pas une proposition de mise en œuvre.

Vingt-cinq contrôleurs civils et militaires ainsi que des spécialistes de la défenseaérienne ont pris part à la simulation, qui couvrait la région englobant Oslo, Göteborg,Copenhague, Berlin et Hambourg. La limite inférieure de l'espace aérien simulé sesituait au FL 285.

La simulation reposait sur l'application de minima réduits de séparation verticale(RVSM), l'instauration de ces derniers constituant un préalable à l'adoption éventuelledu concept d'itinéraires libres. Dans ce contexte, la circulation opérationnelle militaireétait considérée comme ne disposant pas de moyens RVSM.

La simulation a été réalisée sur la plate-forme standard du Centre expérimentald'EUROCONTROL, laquelle intègre la version 2 d'OLDI, un système de coordinationcivile-militaire automatisée et un dispositif MTCD reposant sur une interface homme-machine sans bande.

L'équipe FRAP chargée de l'étude des performances humaines a pris part à lasimulation et réalisé un certain nombre de mesures spécifiques ayant trait, notamment,aux mouvements oculaires et à la fréquence cardiaque. Les résultats de ces travauxfont l'objet d'un rapport distinct. Par ailleurs, les résultats de la simulation ont étéexploités pour obtenir des informations utiles pour la simulation en temps accéléré duconcept d'itinéraires libres et l'étude des aspects liés à la sécurité.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

2. OBJECTIFSLa simulation en temps réel à grande échelle de la partie nord du FRAP avait pourobjectif global de valider le Concept d'espace aérien à itinéraire libre sur la base duprojet d'ORD du FRA dans le cadre d'un exercice faisant intervenir plusieurs CCR.

Plus spécifiquement, les objectifs poursuivis étaient les suivants :

1. valider et optimiser la sectorisation découlant de la simulation en temps accéléré duFRAP, à l'appui de la validation du Concept d'espace aérien à itinéraire libre ;

2. évaluer les incidences, sur la charge de travail des contrôleurs, de l'introduction dela détection simple de conflits ;

3. évaluer les procédures proposées aux points d'entrée-sortie de l'espace aérien àitinéraire libre, cerner les problèmes éventuels et proposer des solutions ;

4. évaluer les incidences, sur la charge de travail des contrôleurs et leur perception del'environnement opérationnel, des réacheminements tactiques autour de zonesd'espace aérien réservé, et identifier les besoins connexes au niveau des systèmes;

5. analyser les incidences des interventions tactiques sur les secteurs en aval,notamment les exigences posées en termes :

• d'échange de données en ligne et de coordination automatisée (OLDI/SYSCO) ;• de prévision de trajectoires ;• de diffusion des données de vol ;• de détection des conflits ;

6. valider les différentes procédures de prise en charge de la COM ;

7. appuyer les ensembles de travaux FRAP suivants : simulation en temps accéléré,étude des aspects liés à la sécurité et étude des facteurs humains.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

3. CONCLUSIONSValider le concept d'espace aérien à itinéraire libre sur la base du projet d'ORD duFRA dans le cadre d'une simulation en temps réel faisant intervenir plusieurs CCR -conclusions générales :

• Le concept FRA est aisé à comprendre et est accepté par les contrôleursparticipants. De l'avis de ces derniers, le concept pourra être mis en œuvre dès queles fonctions d'appui seront en place.

• Le concept FRA se traduit par un transfert de charge de travail vers le contrôleurexécutif.

Valider et optimiser la sectorisation découlant de la simulation en temps accéléré duFRAP à l'appui de la validation du Concept d'espace aérien à itinéraire libre.

• La mise en œuvre du concept suppose une réorganisation des secteurs actuels.• Cette réorganisation doit s'effectuer sur la base de nouvelles règles (prise en

considération des courants de trafic et des TRA, limitation au minimum des entrées-sorties répétitives).

• Un ajustement des TRA, qui tienne compte des courants de trafic FRA, desimpératifs militaires et des contraintes liées à l'espace aérien inférieur, estnécessaire pour optimiser l'utilisation de l'espace aérien.

• Des études de modélisation approfondies sont également requises.Évaluer les incidences, sur la charge de travail des contrôleurs, de l'introduction de ladétection simple de conflits.

• La qualité de la MTCD utilisée dans le cadre de la simulation était médiocre.• Maastricht, Berlin, Copenhague et Malmö devront être dotés de fonctions MTCD

préalablement à la mise en œuvre du FRA.• La fourniture de la MTCD ne s'est pas traduite par une diminution de la charge de

travail.• Il est nécessaire de développer plus avant les fonctions MTCD et la HMI pour

rééquilibrer la charge de travail entre contrôleurs de planification et contrôleursexécutifs.

Évaluer les procédures proposées aux points d'entrée/sortie de l'espace aérien àitinéraire libre, cerner les problèmes éventuels et proposer des solutions.

• Les points d'entrée-sortie de l'espace aérien inférieur devraient se situer à 80-100NM des aéroports.

• Les points d'entrée dans l'espace aérien inférieur devraient être clairement distinctsdes points de sortie afin de prévenir les conflits entre vols en montée et endescente.

• Les vols ne devraient pas être autorisés à passer directement de l'espace aérieninférieur au RFL sans coordination préalable avec le secteur FRA.

• Certains contrôleurs ont estimé qu'il convenait d'intégrer le trafic au réseau deroutes fixes préalablement à la mise en séquence, de manière à rendre cettedernière tâche plus aisée.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

Évaluer les incidences, sur la charge de travail des contrôleurs et leur perception del'environnement opérationnel, des réacheminements tactiques autour de zonesd'espace aérien réservé, et identifier les besoins connexes au niveau des systèmes.

• Il conviendrait, dans le but de réduire la charge de travail, de planifier les volsautour des zones d'espace aérien réservé.

• Les routes devraient être actualisées peu après le décollage afin de tenir comptedes dernières informations disponibles.

• Il conviendrait de mettre en place une base de données concernant le statuteffectif et programmé des zones d'espace aérien réservé.

• L'adoption d'une dénomination conventionnelle permettrait aux contrôleurs decomprendre pourquoi certains points particuliers figurent sur les plans de vol.

Analyser les incidences des interventions tactiques sur les secteurs en aval,notamment les exigences posées en termes :

d'échange de données en ligne et de coordination automatisée (OLDI/SYSCO)de prévision de trajectoiresde diffusion des données de volde détection des conflits.

• Le dispositif OLDI devrait être en mesure de gérer les modifications de séquencedes secteurs, étant donné que celles-ci feront généralement suite à desinterventions tactiques.

• Le dispositif OLDI doit pouvoir fournir des informations quant au secteur empruntépar la trajectoire estimée pour entrer dans la zone du CCR suivant.

• Il convient de réfléchir sur l'opportunité d'étendre les COP aux portes.• Les séquences de secteurs doivent être recalculées à la suite d'interventions

tactiques.• Il y a lieu d'établir une zone tampon autour des secteurs de façon à permettre au

contrôleur d'appeler des informations sur les vols concernés.Valider les différentes procédures de prise en charge de la COM.

• Le concept FRA ne constitue pas une entrave pour la COM.• La charge de travail du contrôleur COM augmentera.• Il se pourrait que certains vols COM actuellement effectués hors TRA doivent se

faire en TRA en cas de mise en œuvre du concept FRA.Appuyer les ensembles de travaux FRAP suivants : simulation en temps accéléré,étude des aspects liés à la sécurité et étude des facteurs humains.

• Cet aspect est abordé dans les différents rapports concernant les études précitées.

FRAP LRT/NORTH


EUROCONTROL

4. RECOMMANDATIONSLes études complémentaires ci-après devraient être entreprises dans le cadre de laphase de validation du Projet d'espace aérien à itinéraire libre dans huit États :

1. Poursuite de la mise au point d'outils qui permettent au contrôleur de planificationde décharger le contrôleur exécutif et, partant, de réduire les risques de surchargede ce dernier.

2. Réalisation de simulations sur modèle à l'effet d'optimiser les secteurs, les zonesd'espace aérien réservé et les points d'entrée-sortie, sur la base de l'expérienceacquise au cours du processus de validation du FRAP.

3. Définition, sur la base d'études complémentaires, de procédures relatives à laplanification des vols autour de zones d'espace aérien réservé, et formulation delignes directrices pour le contournement tactique de zones d'espace aérien.

4. Analyse de la problématique des COP considérés en tant que points ou portesdans l'optique de résoudre les problèmes posés par l'échange de données deligne (OLDI).

EIGHT-STATES FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE PROJECT … · LARGE SCALE REAL-TIME SIMULATION NORTH SCENARIO EEC...

Documents

Transcript of EIGHT-STATES FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE PROJECT … · LARGE SCALE REAL-TIME SIMULATION NORTH SCENARIO EEC...